In the Bully Boy Bush years, FAIR -- in all its splendors -- served a purpose. That doesn't mean it was perfect. In October 2006, for example, as FAIR was celebrating its 20th anniversary, this site was pointing out that instead of just pointing fingers at NPR and PBS for their lack of equality when it came to the gender make up of the guests, maybe CounterSpin could also attempt to book an equal number of male and female guests. The response to that article from FAIR may have been the first realization that those who dish it out can't take it.
FAIR served a purpose under Bully Boy Bush largely because it called out power. It cut corners sometimes and was on shaky ground -- and non-existent ground -- from time to time, but you could -- and we did -- forgive it a lot because it held power accountable.
For example, the fawning over Bush? Like at the January 2005 inauguration? There was FAIR calling that nonsense out, there was CounterSpin holding up to ridicule these adults writing pieces in newspapers that read like clippings from 16 and Tiger Beat.
More than a fact checking, what FAIR best offered was a sense of perspective.
In 2007, FAIR still served a purpose. Largely that was due to Peter Hart who was apparently the last major voice of the organization (Hart, Janine Jackson and Steve Rendall co-host CounterSpin and write for Extra! and the online site) with ethics. Hart wrote the hardest hitting piece on Barack Obama from FAIR -- the hardest to this day. By 2008, FAIR was determined to impact the Democractic Party primary -- and, no, that's really not a watchdog function.
But each week, the website and especially the radio show, was all about real racism and sometimes what FAIR saw as racism (or pretended they saw it as racism). So every week was about poor Barack and rally around him. And sexism was ignored. Sexism was all over the media and CounterSpin ignored it. Week after week. Month after month.
January, February, March and April, they were silent. Out of fear that noting the sexism could galvanize support for Hillary. Then, in their final weekly episode for May, they finally 'discovered' sexism. As we noted in real time, it took a 'political analysis discussion' on CNN in which a male talking head called Hillary a "bitch," for CounterSpin to note sexism. And they gave it a whopping sentence! Before rushing off to racism. They couldn't even spare the time to tell you the name of the pundit who called her a "bitch" on air or the program he was on. To them, that was 'fair,' over 20 episodes noting racism and 'racism' at length and one of the over 20 noting sexism in one sentence.
And that's why we were done with FAIR.
It had little to offer in 2008 and, when the inauguration of Barack Obama took place in January 2009, the decrying of this ceremony and the press salivating over it was gone. FAIR was no longer a check on power. As it took its tired act into the Champagne Room, we bid them adieu and remained in the reality based world.
Strangers With Candy (directed by Paul Dinello, screenplay by Stephen Colbert, Paul Dinello and Amy Sedaris) kicks off with Jerri Blank released from prison and headed home wondering, "Can we change?"
We like to think so.
So after Peter Hart had written a series of strong pieces in the last months, we were willing to take another look and see if FAIR had rediscovered its purpose?
On the last episode of CounterSpin, we'll give Janine Jackson credit for disclosing before starting an interview. Yes, that is a basic but we're not being snarky. In the last years, such disclosures have failed to take place on various programs. So we'll give Janine credit for doing what she did -- which is something everyone should be doing, though few do. After her interview with Kimberle Crenshaw, Peter Hart followed it with an interview that echoed the former glory of FAIR as he and Tyson Slocum addressed administration claims versus realities.
And its those moments that argue in FAIR's favor.
But those weren't the only moments, sadly.
Each episode of CounterSpin starts with a snarky put down of recent press. Peter Hart handled his section rather well. Steve Rendall was less fortunate.
Steve Rendall: Not long ago, a massive scandal dominated newspapers and cable news. The IRS was denying and or delaying tax exempt status to right-wing leaning tea party groups. The question was just how Nixonian the Obama administration had become? But then the story changed. There's still plenty of evidence of inappropriate testing or targeting of political groups seeking non-profit status but according to the latest from the IRS the tests were not just applied to conservative groups. As The New York Times reported on June 25th, the IRS was also scrutinizing groups with names including words like "progressive" and "occupy." And groups dealing in issues like medical marijuana and The Times noted that "occupy territory advocacy seems subject to the most scrutiny of all." In an understatement, The Times remarked, "The new IRS documents raise questions about how the controversy has been portrayed." Yeah, a little bit. This is a far cry of the partisan portrayal of the scandal as the government harassing political opponents. Never mind that there was no evidence of a White House role in the policy, conservative pundits went to town. In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that the policy's "purpose obviously was to overwhelm and intimidate to kill the opposition, question by question, and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all of this an accident, a mistake." Bill O'Reilly suggested a conspiracy by citing non-existent White House visits by the IRS chief. When the story broke it was treated as part of the White House scandal trifecta and now, well, it's barely a story at all.
It seemed to last forever and to fail FAIR repeatedly.
Not long ago, a massive scandal dominated newspapers and cable news. The IRS was denying and or delaying tax exempt status to right-wing leaning tea party groups.
Was that the scandal?
See, we didn't follow the reporting that closely because we were busy doing our own reporting. We were attending the Congressional hearings and we were writing about the Inspector General report.
What was FAIR doing?
The question was just how Nixonian the Obama administration had become?
Not from the IRS scandal. The question was because you had three scandals brewing -- Benghazi, the IRS and the assault on the press.
But then the story changed. There's still plenty of evidence of inappropriate testing or targeting of political groups seeking non-profit status but according to the latest from the IRS the tests were not just applied to conservative groups.
Now we're the ones confused, not Steve Rendall.
As The New York Times reported on June 25th, the IRS was also scrutinizing groups with names including words like "progressive" and "occupy." And groups dealing in issues like medical marijuana and The Times noted that "occupy territory advocacy seems subject to the most scrutiny of all."
Wait, this is news to him? That the left was also targeted? Where has Rendall been?
For example, the May 17th House Ways and Means Committee hearing led to the following community reporting: "Iraq snapshot," "IRS: 'Not corrupt, just incompetent'," "Guacamole and the IRS (Ava)," Wally in "Big lie revealed at House Ways and Means hearing," Kat in "The other Steve Miller appears before Congress," Marcia in "No accountability for the IRS scandal" and "Report on Congress."
The guacamole and the IRS report on that hearing, for example, opens with:
Today was the hearing about the targeting of groups by the IRS. Danny DumbF**K Schechter is an idiot because he doesn't realize that this is political groups -- including Democratic organizations -- and churches and book clubs (and they were asked "what was in the books that they read" -- US House Rep Pat Tiberi) and volunteer organizations.
How did you miss that if you followed the hearing?
And that's over a month before Rendall's blessed New York Times article.
In an understatement, The Times remarked, "The new IRS documents raise questions about how the controversy has been portrayed." Yeah, a little bit.
Oh, that's Rendall's point. The reporting was wrong. Reporters -- filing on cable and in newspapers -- failed to address what the hearings were revealing. Okay . . .
This is a far cry of the partisan portrayal of the scandal as the government harassing political opponents.
Wait a second. Is this no longer FAIR? What's this partisan nonsense? Are they criticizing reporters or not?
Never mind that there was no evidence of a White House role in the policy, conservative pundits went to town.
Pundits went to town did they? Wow, that's a shocker. Imagine that, pundits -- aka gas bags -- went to town. Who could have guessed?
In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that the policy's "purpose obviously was to overwhelm and intimidate to kill the opposition, question by question, and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all of this an accident, a mistake." Bill O'Reilly suggested a conspiracy by citing non-existent White House visits by the IRS chief.
We never covered the White House 'visits' because we were aware from the start that the documents in question weren't sign-in records. But we weren't surprised others didn't grasp that. We ignored it as nonsense when it was being trumpeted as news and we ignored it as nonsense after.
We think Peter Hart explained it best, June 6th. And we think that said it all so why, over 20 days later, is Rendall badly restating it?
More to the point, what is this mixing of apples and oranges?
Is the topic that the press got it wrong in reporting or is the topic two right-wing gas bags FAIR hates?
When the story broke it was treated as part of the White House scandal trifecta and now, well, it's barely a story at all.
And what's Rendall's point?
In all that time, he never had one. He was over here and over there. And at the end what is he trying to say? Is that last sentence a criticism of the news cycle or what?
Clearly, the spying scandal overtook every other scandal. Not because of the revelations NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden. That would be great if we could explore those revelations. In fact, the failure of the press to explore those revelations is the sort of topic CounterSpin should be exploring. As Barack and others in the administration began making (baseless) threats, the spying story -- or the pursuit -- became everything. Barack's ridiculous threats and words were the white Bronco in this 'chase' story. When CounterSpin's ready to tackle that, it'll be ready to yet again provide a public service but, until then, it's just spinning its wheels.
